Government of Gujarat vs BHAVESHGIRI PRATAPGIRI GOSAI Advocate - C S GOSWAMI — 886/2024
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66-1-b, 85-2. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 21st May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM040011352024
Filing Number
886/2024
Filing Date
31-08-2024
Registration No
886/2024
Registration Date
31-08-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
21st May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11202026240037
Police Station
JAMJODHPUR POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BHAVESHGIRI PRATAPGIRI GOSAI Advocate - C S GOSWAMI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 29-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY The court acquitted the accused, Bhaveshgiri Pratapgiri Gosai, of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) for allegedly consuming and publicly appearing with alcohol without a permit on January 15, 2024. The court found fatal procedural violations in the blood sample collection process—specifically, the mandatory requirements of Rule 4 of the Medical Examination Rules (1959) were breached, as the doctor did not personally handle the anti-coagulant and preservative in the phial, undermining the evidential reliability and vitiating the conviction based on medical evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY The court acquitted the accused, Bhaveshgiri Pratapgiri Gosai, of charges under Gujarat Prohibition Act sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) for allegedly consuming and publicly appearing with alcohol without a permit on January 15, 2024. The court found fatal procedural violations in the blood sample collection process—specifically, the mandatory requirements of Rule 4 of the Medical Examination Rules (1959) were breached, as the doctor did not personally handle the anti-coagulant and preservative in the phial, undermining the evidential reliability and vitiating the conviction based on medical evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts